tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post3103298234145277061..comments2014-05-09T13:25:02.936-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Leprechauns?Martinnoreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79657462633420092132011-03-05T14:06:13.798-06:002011-03-05T14:06:13.798-06:00Gnomes, elves and leprechauns which is the differe...Gnomes, elves and leprechauns which is the difference between these creatures?<br />Thank you<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/bradfallon" rel="nofollow">Brad Fallon</a>Ridhi Web Experthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06339008519840279206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73631394838625829422010-01-28T16:40:45.036-06:002010-01-28T16:40:45.036-06:00Stenlis:
This is way over-due, and I don&#39;t ex...Stenlis:<br /><br />This is way over-due, and I don&#39;t expect a reply. But someone e-mailed our list, and it led me back to this comments section, where I saw your post unanswered.<br /><br />Disbelief is sometimes described as &quot;not believing&quot; and sometimes as stronger denial. As it includes not believing, Matt would say he does _not believe_ the claim.<br /><br />And this is your position in regard to the claim &quot;god exists.&quot; You don&#39;t believe it.<br /><br />Anyone who does not believe &quot;god exists&quot; is an atheist. You may also be agnostic, but you are, by definition, an atheist as well.traciehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13375806982865487478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64753882710510687672009-09-22T08:15:56.211-05:002009-09-22T08:15:56.211-05:00Tracie:
I gave it some thought and I found that m...Tracie:<br /><br />I gave it some thought and I found that my problem is rather semantical. <br /><br />When people say &quot;I do not believe this statement&quot;, it is more often then not a position of &#39;disbelief&#39;. <br /><br />When I refuse to take a belief position on a statement, you would say &quot;You do not believe that statement&quot;, but in this case it is not a position of &#39;disbelief&#39;. I would agree that it is a &#39;non-belief&#39; - as it is distinct from a position of believing the statement but by saying that my position is &#39;agnostic&#39; I try to describe that my position is neither belief nor disbelief.<br /><br />So - just as you can say that my position is non-belief, you could, as well, say that my position is non-disbelief. And that is what I understand agnosticism to be.<br /><br />As to Matt&#39;s dark energy position - I was not trying to make an argument from authority but rather illustrate a mindset about a claim. I saw Matt say that he does not believe the dark energy claim on the AE show. I wonder if he would say he is in a position I mentioned above - non-belief &amp; non-disbelief - or he actually takes a position of disbelief. It might very well be disbelief - I see that as a matter of preference.<br /><br />You might feel that there is no space between belief and disbelief. I&#39;m afraid though that (if this is your position) both my claim that there is such a thing and your claim that there isn&#39;t can only remain assertions and cannot be proven.stenlishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09636450792564014547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64677345476577315952009-09-21T04:51:50.518-05:002009-09-21T04:51:50.518-05:00dhawk:
Solipsism is useless, I agree. Lately I co...dhawk:<br /><br />Solipsism is useless, I agree. Lately I compared it to a video game. The reality is only virtual, but still operates on rules.<br /><br />&quot;Reality&quot; operates similarly. There is a Solipsistic level where we have no idea if this reality is real or illusory. But since that claim is useless, and cannot be addressed, we have the option to sit back and starve to death or go forward with the only &quot;reality&quot; presented to us.<br /><br />If we opt to &quot;live&quot;--then we have chosen &quot;the game,&quot; so to speak.<br /><br />Once we&#39;re in this &quot;game&quot; we have rules which we cannot control. In other words, I put my hand on a hot burner, it is unpleasant--whether it&#39;s illusory or not.<br /><br />Let&#39;s say that in our video game, we have guns, knives, and bombs available as weapons. But the game has no &quot;magic spears.&quot; It has a magic crystal, but there is no way to observe or access the crystal if you are a player. It is utterly unknown to you, and you&#39;ll never be aware of it. Only the programmer knows it&#39;s there.<br /><br />The players then are exploring the game world, trying to make sense of it--real or not, because they&#39;re in it and can&#39;t escape and have no way to know it&#39;s not real.<br /><br />They can only &quot;know&quot; what is presentable to them--what can be discovered. What cannot be discovered cannot be known. And they have zero reason to believe in either the magic spear or the magic crystal. Neither manifests to them in any way--even while one is in the game and the other is not.<br /><br />To the players, then, &quot;reality&quot; will be one without a magic spear and without a magic crystal.<br /><br />For &quot;reality&quot; to have any practical use as a word, it must represent the things that manifest, since that which does not manifest cannot be known and included in the set &quot;reality.&quot;<br /><br />If one asserts the magic crystal, they could just as well assert the magic spear, as there is the same level of evidence to the players for both items.<br /><br />&quot;Existence&quot; to be useful can only include the things that manifest and would, practically have to not include the spear or the crystal.<br /><br />Since the players can only categorize what they can identify, examine and understand, &quot;existence&quot; can only be those things that fit those requirements.<br /><br />The spear &quot;is not&quot; and the crystal &quot;is&quot;--but in the only useful and practical vocabulary of the players, neither item &quot;exists.&quot;<br /><br />Existence and reality are not statements about &quot;what is&quot; but &quot;what is manifest.&quot;<br /><br />We cannot include things that do not manifest because in the case of those things there is no way to differentiate between which &quot;are&quot; and which &quot;are not.&quot;<br /><br />Neither the spear nor the crystal can &quot;exist&quot; in the game, to the players. Whether they are or not is irrelevant, since the players have no reason to think those items &quot;are&quot; without manifestation.<br /><br />If we assert that crystal exists, we must also assert the spear exists, since whatever grounds we use will apply equally to both--as players.<br /><br />In other words, if god manifests as much as a leprechaun--and the theist rejects leprechauns exist, we have a problem. Both must be accepted or rejected on the grounds that they both manifest to the same degree. To accept the crystal and reject the spear makes no sense, even if it&#39;s correct. It&#39;s the same as accepting the spear and rejecting the crystal--based on what is available to the players.<br /><br />As an atheist, I would say neither should be said to exist until it can be demonstrated. The theist feels very sure one exists, but not the other. The theist is inconsistent.traciehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13375806982865487478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26343970755875856852009-09-21T04:30:27.505-05:002009-09-21T04:30:27.505-05:00Stenlis:
I sincerely hope you were watching yeste...Stenlis:<br /><br />I sincerely hope you were watching yesterday&#39;s AE show. I don&#39;t bring other people in usually when it comes to an issue like this. I wouldn&#39;t say &quot;Matt says X, therefore you&#39;re wrong.&quot; In a case like this the &quot;argument from authority&quot; fails using anything but honest context and a dictionary, because we&#39;re truly discussing word definition and usage here. But invoking Matt as you did, above, I took the opportunity to pwn that claim, by putting your question directly to Matt.<br /><br />I asked him if it was correct to say that if he &quot;has no position&quot; on claim X, where claim X is &quot;X exists,&quot; that it is fair to say he does not believe X exists.<br /><br />He confirmed it does.<br /><br />Your seem unable to wrap your brain around the reality that saying &quot;I have no position on X&quot; is a restatement of &quot;I do not believe X.&quot; It&#39;s the same statement.<br /><br />Matt went on to describe _why_ if you&#39;re interested in watching the explanation. It was into the show where we had about 20 minutes or so left (rough estimate).<br /><br />Believe = accept a claim as true.<br /><br />If I say &quot;Do you believe god exists?&quot;<br /><br />I&#39;m asking: Do you accept as true the claim god exists?<br /><br />If you have &quot;no position,&quot; then you do not accept the claim is true, since accepting the claim is true _is_ a position.<br /><br />Your position, in having no position, is that (1) you do not accept the claim as true, and (2) you do not accept the claim as not true.<br /><br />(1) where we sub &quot;believe&quot; for &quot;accept the claim as true,&quot; we have absolutely just said &quot;You do not _believe_ the claim.&quot; This is a state of disbelieve. You have no believe. You do not believe in whatever this claim asserts. Unavoidable.<br /><br />(2) In this section, if we sub &quot;not true&quot; with &quot;false,&quot; we have merely restated &quot;I do not believe the claim is false.&quot;<br /><br />An atheist is:<br /><br />A: Anyone who does not believe the claim &quot;god exists&quot; is true (1)<br /><br />B: Anyone who believes the claim &quot;god exists&quot; is false. (2)<br /><br />I understand you do not accept the claim is false--many atheists also do not. But you DO &quot;not believe&quot; the claim god exists. And anyone who does not believe the claim &quot;god exists&quot; is an atheist.<br /><br />1. You either have belief (conviction this claim is a true claim - believe the claim) or<br /><br />2. you are unsure about the claim (and so, do not think it&#39;s a true claim - do not believe the claim), or<br /><br />3. you think the claim is false (believe the claim is false).<br /><br />You are claiming a middle ground between 1 and 2, having a conviction it&#39;s true versus not having that conviction.<br /><br />Not possible.<br /><br />Up to the point you have the conviction, you don&#39;t have it. If you have no position, you have no conviction. You cannot, therefore &quot;believe&quot; the claim. If I cannot believe your claim, then it&#39;s a restatement of &quot;I do not believe your claim.&quot;<br /><br />You&#39;re trying to argue that means I&#39;m saying I think your claim is false. It doesn&#39;t. It means I do not accept the claim as true. That is the state of &quot;not believing.&quot;traciehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13375806982865487478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48798148933598617562009-09-20T15:22:42.225-05:002009-09-20T15:22:42.225-05:00&gt;He goes on to say &#39;I don&#39;t know what m...&gt;He goes on to say &#39;I don&#39;t know what my position is on dark energy&#39;. He seems to be in your &#39;fantasy middlegroung&#39; about the thing - not being able to take a position - like saying &#39;I don&#39;t believe dark energy exists&#39;.<br /><br />Wrong. And Matt, can contradict me if he&#39;d like, but I know his position. If Matt honestly &quot;doesn&#39;t know what his position is&quot; then he cannot say &quot;I believe in dark energy.&quot; If you ask Matt, who says he has no position, he WILL tell you that he does not believe in dark energy.traciehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13375806982865487478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21736756070440534872009-09-20T15:20:46.557-05:002009-09-20T15:20:46.557-05:00&gt;there is a middleground between belief and non...&gt;there is a middleground between belief and non-belief in general. That middleground is &#39;not knowing&#39;. <br /><br />Belief is to accept a claim as true. If you can say that you accept the claim &quot;god exists&quot; is true, then you are a theist. If you do not accept it as true, you are a non-believer (someone who does not assert it is true). There is no middle ground.<br /><br />God exists.<br /><br />Can you say you accept that statement as &quot;true&quot;? You either can, or you can&#39;t.traciehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13375806982865487478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8377205366570645432009-09-20T10:27:54.405-05:002009-09-20T10:27:54.405-05:00tracie:
you said somewhere that you think I belie...tracie:<br /><br />you said somewhere that you think I believe there is a &#39;fantasy middleground&#39; between theism and atheism. Well I do believe there is a middleground - on a higher level then just theism/atheism - there is a middleground between belief and non-belief in general. That middleground is &#39;not knowing&#39;. <br /><br />In many instances &#39;not knowing&#39; and &#39;not believing&#39; come hand in hand. But there are some when they don&#39;t. For instance, open up the last Non Prophets show where Matt talks about dark energy (about 1:30:00 into the show). He goes on to say &#39;I don&#39;t know what my position is on dark energy&#39;. He seems to be in your &#39;fantasy middlegroung&#39; about the thing - not being able to take a position - like saying &#39;I don&#39;t believe dark energy exists&#39;.<br /><br />Why is that?stenlishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09636450792564014547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6734637003275614722009-09-16T21:51:22.337-05:002009-09-16T21:51:22.337-05:001) was a joke about the skit.
I addressed that alr...<i>1) was a joke about the skit.</i><br />I addressed that already, twice - the joke was at my expense, i.e. mockery. He took my position and &quot;defended&quot; it with the absurd arguments of the skit.<br /><br /><i>2) Grow a sense of humor</i><br />I addressed that too. If someone tells you a joke, the punchline of which is spitting in your face, would you find it less insulting than if they had left out the joke before spitting in your face? And if you find yourself routinely telling people they need to grow a sense of humor, maybe you should heed your own advice - maybe you&#39;re just not funny.<br /><br /><i>3) End the discussion now, as we&#39;ve already prolonged it more than we were asked to.</i><br />You&#39;re right, we should end the discussion. I appreciate you offering me the opportunity to have the last word. In any case, there&#39;s really nothing more to be said.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82708966671126678482009-09-16T20:25:48.168-05:002009-09-16T20:25:48.168-05:001) was a joke about the skit.
2) Grow a sense of...1) was a joke about the skit. <br />2) Grow a sense of humor<br /><br />3) End the discussion now, as we&#39;ve already prolonged it more than we were asked to.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15539686400664515132009-09-16T16:26:21.474-05:002009-09-16T16:26:21.474-05:00@Ing,
There were three people who mentioned the M...@Ing,<br /><br />There were three people who mentioned the Matrix: I did in my first comment to illustrate my point, Janet did in her response to me, and Adrael in a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to Janet. As far as I can tell, Janet was completely serious in her reply.<br /><br />The fact that Adrael was trying to be funny was not lost on me. But when I said earlier there&#39;s a difference between mocking someone and making a joke, I wasn&#39;t suggesting that you couldn&#39;t do both at the same time. My point was that including humor doesn&#39;t make the insult less offensive.<br /><br />Before I had the chance to, Adrael used the absurd arguments of the hypothetical agnostic in Matt&#39;s post to &quot;address&quot; Janet&#39;s criticism of <i>my</i> argument. That&#39;s called poisoning the well - no matter what follows, my argument will be taken less seriously. [pedantry]Technically, it&#39;s an appeal to ridicule.[/pedantry] Connecting my arguments with those of the agnostic was an invitation for everyone else to dismiss what I said out of hand.<br /><br />Now, this meta-discussion is incredibly interesting I&#39;m sure, but why couldn&#39;t you engage me on the subject instead? Your first comment in this post was to call the first person who disagreed with the blog post a troll, and your second comment was to tell me (the second person who disagrees) to &quot;relax the sphincter.&quot; I just don&#39;t see what you gain from it, other than ridicule for the sake of ridicule.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58863966763831110522009-09-16T09:45:05.009-05:002009-09-16T09:45:05.009-05:00Dhawk: *Sigh* The matrix comments made by other pe...Dhawk: *Sigh* The matrix comments made by other people were joking.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71840381159614408132009-09-16T00:08:52.320-05:002009-09-16T00:08:52.320-05:00@Martin,
I wasn&#39;t sure if you meant no more d...@Martin,<br /><br />I wasn&#39;t sure if you meant no more discussion, or no more flames. I tried to make my response civil and sincere, but if you meant to cap off the discussion, I&#39;m sorry for continuing it.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32892018924782462162009-09-15T23:58:55.506-05:002009-09-15T23:58:55.506-05:00@Ing,
There&#39;s a difference between making fun...@Ing,<br /><br />There&#39;s a difference between making fun of someone and making a joke. Mocking someone and then claiming &quot;it was only a joke&quot; doesn&#39;t make it less insulting.<br /><br />This blog is about a serious topic, and while many posts aren&#39;t 100% serious, a great deal of them are. I get that you might not be interested in a serious discussion, but what do you gain by shouting down others that are?dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39344368655250856752009-09-15T20:56:54.513-05:002009-09-15T20:56:54.513-05:00Okay guys. This is Mr. Mean Blog Admin Guy, asking...Okay guys. This is Mr. Mean Blog Admin Guy, asking politely for a cease-fire on the flamewar. The next time it will be impoliteness in the form of deletions.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2092461569009937922009-09-15T19:40:12.864-05:002009-09-15T19:40:12.864-05:00Translation of Dhawk: THE INTERNETZ ARE SERIOUS BU...Translation of Dhawk: THE INTERNETZ ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS!Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61017981773172311242009-09-15T19:39:34.106-05:002009-09-15T19:39:34.106-05:00&quot;What is it with people who have nothing bett...&quot;What is it with people who have nothing better to do than give condescending and unasked for advice? Is anyone forcing you to read the comments section? I&#39;d be a lot quicker to shut up if someone had actually offered a response to my argument, or if no one had responded, instead of inane one-offs by people who didn&#39;t bother to read it.<br /><br />But by all means, keep up your crusade to tell people in the comments section of niche blogs to relax and stop caring so much about what other people write on the Internet. It&#39;s not hypocritical, I promise. Or you could, you know, ignore the comments that don&#39;t interest or pertain to you, and take the time to respond thoughtfully to those that do.&quot;<br /><br />Dhawk, allow me to explain what happened that you&#39;re not grasping.<br /><br />Have you ever been at a party where someone told a joke, something clearly for fun and jest, and then someone overhearing it flew into a rant attacking that person as if what they said was entirely serious? Meanwhile the rest of the room is looking at him in sympathetic dread trying to convey to him &quot;dude, it was a joke&quot; before he makes a compleate fool of himself by his knee jerk rant? At the end the person says &quot;um...loosen up I was jokeing&quot; and all he can do is look sheepish and say &quot;oh....&quot; and then there&#39;s an awkward silence?<br /><br />Ok that&#39;s what you just did. And it went from sad to hillarious because you just KEPT doing it. Even people trying to help you save face you attacked and lashed out. It&#39;s like watching a small dog jump into a glass door, again and again and again...sad yet sadistically funny.Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17297634393893461532009-09-15T17:45:25.912-05:002009-09-15T17:45:25.912-05:00What is it with people who have nothing better to ...What is it with people who have nothing better to do than give condescending and unasked for advice? Is anyone forcing you to read the comments section? I&#39;d be a lot quicker to shut up if someone had actually offered a response to my argument, or if no one had responded, instead of inane one-offs by people who didn&#39;t bother to read it.<br /><br />But by all means, keep up your crusade to tell people in the comments section of niche blogs to relax and stop caring so much about what other people write on the Internet. It&#39;s not hypocritical, I promise. Or you could, you know, ignore the comments that don&#39;t interest or pertain to you, and take the time to respond thoughtfully to those that do.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87070173553455264792009-09-15T12:46:22.319-05:002009-09-15T12:46:22.319-05:00@dhawk: I think maybe you do. As lng said, chill....@dhawk: I think maybe you do. As lng said, chill.kopdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03887294932899817122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75599536071625410262009-09-14T22:00:33.842-05:002009-09-14T22:00:33.842-05:00@Ing
Come again? I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t speak...@Ing<br /><br />Come again? I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t speak troll.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58924239094374074242009-09-14T20:18:14.267-05:002009-09-14T20:18:14.267-05:00&quot;You must think yourself rather clever, but m...&quot;You must think yourself rather clever, but maybe if you actually tried to understand what I wrote, you might realize why your response is an absurd non-sequitur / strawman. In general it&#39;s a good idea to engage someone else&#39;s arguments for what are rather than what you&#39;d prefer to argue against.&quot;<br /><br />Attention Dhawk. RELEASE THE SPHINCTER!Inghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68043205693466003242009-09-14T14:34:59.847-05:002009-09-14T14:34:59.847-05:00@Janet,
Way to completely miss the point. First o...@Janet,<br /><br />Way to completely miss the point. First of all, I wasn&#39;t talking about the Matrix exactly as it was in the movie, I only used it because it&#39;s an example many are familiar with. I could just have easily asked if you can assign a probability to whether or not you&#39;re only dreaming right now, or if you&#39;re merely a &quot;brain in a jar&quot;, or whether a deity is directly implanting all of our experiences. Or maybe you&#39;re actually locked away in a psych ward, vividly hallucinating all of this.<br /><br />The specifics aren&#39;t important - bottom line is that you cannot in any way determine if your observations correspond to reality. You cannot assess the likelihood that what you are experiencing <i>right now</i> is really what it seems.<br /><br />Of course, the beauty of science is that it doesn&#39;t matter. Science is contigent upon <b>observations</b>, whatever their provenance, not things as they really are. Claims about gods are at their core, claims about things as they really are. So even if a particular part of a claim is testable and comes up negative, that has no bearing on the core claim about reality. Science just rejects it (and all other failed ideas) as useless, not false. Hence Laplace&#39;s famous reply to Napoleon concerning God, &quot;I had no need of that hypothesis.&quot;dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15546116719925825482009-09-14T14:29:30.494-05:002009-09-14T14:29:30.494-05:00@Adrael
You must think yourself rather clever, bu...@Adrael<br /><br />You must think yourself rather clever, but maybe if you actually tried to understand what I wrote, you might realize why your response is an absurd non-sequitur / strawman. In general it&#39;s a good idea to engage someone else&#39;s arguments for what are rather than what you&#39;d prefer to argue against. <br /><br />Did I say anything about belief? No. I was talking about science - where what you believe is irrelevant. Science is about observations and making practical, predictive models of those observations. That&#39;s it. No metaphysical speculation, no assumption about what&#39;s &quot;really&quot; going on, no claims about what really exists, none of that. When discussing subjects (like QM) which require precise language to avoid confusion, many canonical textbooks and pioneers in the field point out the folly in talking about whether a claim is probably true or not. (Feynman, Dirac, Pauling)<br /><br />All of this is to stress the fundamental concept you casually dismissed. We only have access to our own observations. We cannot step outside ourselves and assess their veracity. And because of that, assessing, to any certainty, the <b>veracity</b> of any claim, no matter how mundane, is outside the scope of science and empiricism. What we <i>can</i> do is assess the <b>utility</b> of a claim. Does it make accurate predictions? Is it computationally simple? Is it consistent with other models? Does it shed light on existing problems and suggest further areas of study?<br /><br />Those are the kind of practical questions we ask about a claim in science, not &quot;what&#39;s the probability that it&#39;s True?&quot; or &quot;do you or do you not believe it&#39;s True?&quot; If you&#39;re asking those questions, you&#39;ve left the realm of science and empiricism.dhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03745177323741054747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30840545416916896732009-09-14T13:14:56.134-05:002009-09-14T13:14:56.134-05:00Janet: &quot;But there is no way that you could ge...<b>Janet:</b> <i>&quot;But there is no way that you could generate more energy than it cost you to support them. The whole idea collapses under the laws of thermodynamics.&quot;</i><br /><br />Yeah... the laws of thermodynamics in THIS universe. The one created by the evil super computer that wants us to think it&#39;d be impossible. How would you know if the <i>real</i> universe doesn&#39;t have different laws of physics?.<br /><br />That&#39;s why I&#39;m a Matrix agnostic and not a non-believer like Janet. She&#39;s just as dogmatic as the people who think it&#39;s real. Obviously, since we can&#39;t know anything with any degree of certainty ever, the only reasonable position is to not believe in the Matrix BUT not <i>not</i> believe in it either. :)Adraelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05973486036413829486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14548141701347193872009-09-14T11:50:15.587-05:002009-09-14T11:50:15.587-05:00I love this! Great work Matt!I love this! Great work Matt!Brad Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05212387723982086181noreply@blogger.com